On December 2, 2025, the Trump administration fired eight immigration judges from New York City’s already strained immigration courts, a move that has sent shockwaves through the legal community and raised pressing questions about the future of the nation's immigration system. The judges, all based at 26 Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan—a hub for immigration proceedings and home to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s city headquarters—were let go on the same day that a former Ohio immigration judge, Tania Nemer, filed a high-profile discrimination lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The firings, confirmed by an official from the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and reported by multiple outlets including CBS News and NPR, are part of a broader pattern: since January 2025, 98 immigration judges have been dismissed nationwide, with a similar number choosing early retirement or resigning. This dramatic turnover comes at a time when the federal immigration court system is buckling under a record-breaking backlog of more than 3.4 million cases, as reported by Syracuse University’s TRAC Reports and echoed by NPR. At the start of the year, there were about 700 immigration judges on the bench. By December, that number had dropped below 600, and the departures show no signs of slowing.
Among those dismissed was Amiena Khan, an assistant chief immigration judge who supervised others at the Manhattan court. The firings have not only impacted individual careers but also intensified debate about the direction and integrity of the U.S. immigration court system. In July, several judges described their dismissals to CBS News as “arbitrary, unfair” and “an attack on the rule of law.” The DOJ has repeatedly declined to comment on individual personnel matters, but in a statement to CBS News, a spokesperson asserted, “After four years of the Biden Administration forcing Immigration Courts to implement a de facto amnesty for hundreds of thousands of aliens, this Department of Justice is restoring integrity to our immigration system and encourages talented legal professionals to join in our mission to protect national security and public safety.”
The timing of the Manhattan firings was particularly striking. Earlier that same day, Tania Nemer, who began her judgeship in 2023 under the Biden administration, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleging she was terminated due to her gender, her Lebanese citizenship, and her previous political candidacy as a Democrat in Ohio. Nemer, who was dismissed from her post on February 5, 2025, is seeking reinstatement, arguing that her firing violated her constitutional right to engage in political activity. The DOJ, in response to her prior Equal Employment Opportunity complaint, maintained that her dismissal was a “lawful exercise” of executive authority and not discriminatory.
The firings have also ignited concerns about the qualifications and backgrounds of those who remain—or are being brought in—to fill the gaps. According to NPR, an analysis of 70 judges dismissed through early November found that those with experience defending immigrants were fired at a much higher rate than those who previously worked for the Department of Homeland Security. Jeremiah Johnson, an immigration judge and executive vice president of the NAIJ who was himself fired just over a week before December 2, told NPR, “It appears to me that the immigration judges who are being fired have experience in immigration law. They're professional judges, experts in immigration law and policy.”
Johnson recounted his own dismissal in stark terms: “I was actually in a meeting with my ACIJ, my supervisor immigration judge, when a legal assistant had walked by and told us that judges were being fired. I wasn't told of who at that exact time, or wasn't myself, but then I ended up down in my chambers later on, turned on my email and found out that I was one of the judges who had been fired. So I was notified via email. And shortly thereafter, without even the ability to print that letter, I was locked out of the system.” The only explanation he received, he said, was that the attorney general had decided to remove him pursuant to Article 2 of the Constitution—no further justification or even a “thank you.”
For Johnson and many of his colleagues, the firings signal not just a personnel shakeup, but a broader assault on the independence and professionalism of the immigration judiciary. “What I think you're seeing is an attack on judges themselves, the court system themselves,” Johnson told NPR. He warned that the court system is at a “warning point,” not yet a breaking point, but teetering on the edge due to the sheer volume of cases and the loss of experienced adjudicators.
Congress had attempted to address the crisis earlier in the year. A tax bill passed in July 2025 called for the creation of 800 permanent immigration judge positions and support teams. Yet, according to the NAIJ, only 11 new permanent judges have been installed since January, and just 25 temporary judges—primarily with military backgrounds—have been brought on for six-month terms. This is a far cry from the 600 military lawyers the War Department had planned to deploy as temporary judges in September; only a fraction have completed training and begun hearing cases.
In an effort to fill the mounting vacancies, the Trump administration in late August loosened the job requirements for temporary immigration judges. The new rule, published in the Federal Register, allows a broader group of government lawyers to preside over cases, abandoning the previous requirement that only Justice Department lawyers with at least a decade of immigration law experience or former immigration judges could serve in these roles. While this move may help address the backlog in the short term, it has raised serious concerns among legal professionals about the quality and consistency of immigration adjudication.
“Right now, you're seeing a divestiture almost, hiring temporary immigration judges or reallocating military personnel,” Johnson explained to NPR. “While the NIJ and immigration judges appreciate the help, we want to make sure that those people are qualified and receive the proper training and experience.” He advocates for a more robust solution: “Creating an independent immigration court, hiring more, investing in immigration courts. There is a way forward, and that's with investment in the immigration courts, and we're not seeing that right now.”
For its part, the DOJ insists that it can take action to “preserve the integrity of its system” if a judge shows “systematic bias.” But critics argue that the recent firings have less to do with bias and more to do with consolidating control over the immigration courts in pursuit of the administration’s broader policy goals.
As the backlog of cases continues to swell and the number of experienced judges dwindles, the fate of America’s immigration courts hangs in the balance. The question now is whether Congress and the administration can find common ground to restore stability and integrity to a system that millions of lives depend on every year.
